|06 June 2005||#91|
Lord of the postsportfolio
Originally Posted by tevih: I had an interesting discussion with my great uncle who must be around 90. He has a pretty solid collection of expensive art from oils to crystal sculptures, and he frequently buys and sells, sometimes at auction.
I showed him Expose 2 and D'artiste and wanted to know his opinion. He thought "it was nice". I asked him if he thought it would be considered art and he said absolutely not.
No real new issue here, that discussion over CG Art... "Art or not" is pretty much the same many already had over "Cinema"... which finally was aknowledged to be "the 7th art". Make CG Art the 8th, it is just a combination and evolution of already-existing ways and technologies through which the artistic mind express itself.
Originally Posted by tevih:
His reason was you couldn't sell CG stuff for the same prices you can sell "normal art." Nobody would buy it, because there is no such thing as an original digital. You can print as many copies as you want. There is no texture of the paint. It wasn't created by hand, it was created by computer.
What was the paper and Stone to the artists decades ago are Flat screens and light projected displays nowadays, virtual or real relief of matter onto a masterpiece is not a factor of dissociation between authentic art and CG Art, it is up to us to create the digital tools (printers or displays) that will recreate those reliefs onto the media used to display the Digital Art masterpiece. Only the thinking, WORK, and final result will have value to my eyes, I have a very poor interrest in the tools that have been used to create a masterpiece.
if our advanced technology nowadays makes Digital Art very easy to diffuse and replicate, at no point in my eyes it takes any credits away from the artists over the efforts and talents required to create those masterpieces. If Da Vinci would have had a way to make a couple of extra copies of Mona Lisa back then, I'm pretty sure he would have done it and still we would consider this painting as a major masterpiece of Art history. So the term "Original" makes no sense to me as it is turning a technical limitation, here the unability to reproduce a masterpiece, into the very exclusive "quality" of a specific masterpiece. That is on this non-sense that Art Dealers base their profit on, most pf the time, when re-saling masterpieces, not so often over the quality of an artwork but more over their "rarity". If you ask me, this truelly killed Art in general at some point, I will not tell you what I think of an "orginal Warhol" for instance... just typing it poped a pimple on my butt cheek, it's a joke, especially so late in the age of contemporary art. Anyway, just to say that it is not because you make it more exclusive, that it is any better. I just bought a limited edition of Expose III, do you think I bought it cause we'll be only a 1000 to own one, or because there is more to see in it (16 extra pages) and a better presentation ? ...
Originally Posted by tevih:
Do you guys think CG can crack into the Art Market, fetching thousands? Or are we confined to produce all our works on commission or for regular commercial uses only?
And as to wonder if Digital Art will crack onto the market, fetching thousands... well, it's terrible to come to this talking about art once again. Art was never meant to make profit, it is just the expression of very different and very creative minds, who very often never even made a living out of their only passion and only way to express themselves. But nowadays, maybe because of the speed of communication which allows the artwork of an artist to be spread around the world in a matter of hours, I'd say Yes, a digital artist can make a good living out of his Art, but only for a very few of the hundreds of thousands of artists there are out there, and very often indirectly. Only assumption here, but take for instance Pascal Blanche, the best digital artwork I seen around so far, I can bet he makes a good living out of his proffession in which he excels because of his artistic talents, I don't think he's saling so many posters or whatever reproductions of his artworks, But I'm sure of one thing, it is the influence his artwork has over many different other medias of communication, video games, movies, comics, where his art is employed as a reference. Just as Artists, digital artists are not here to make profit, but to bring new ideas, new standards of quality, there are here to inspire us all with their very unique sights, which in the end, for the best of us all, can be lucrative if they are lucky enoough to get direct credits over the inspiration they bring around them.
to be continued... I guess
Last edited by Adriano-Zanetti : 06 June 2005 at 09:49 AM.
|06 June 2005||#92|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Thread automatically closed
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
|Thread Closed share thread|